First order logic, set theory and God

[GrandizerII]

Just now I re-read the whole thread. No one makes a coherent argument against what he's saying. At the beginning Reltzik makes a reasonable objection, and dr0n3 clarifies properly. Then Polymath replies intelligently, and dr0n3 explains some more. 

No one else deals with what dr0n3 has said. There is some off-topic stuff where people choose to address something other than the argument, and there's a lot of content-free insult. But there are no solid objections that have gone unanswered.

Really? I took into consideration all three of the OP principles and still concluded that it is still possible for the sustaining cause to be naturalistic. Is logical Existence (not to be confused with universe/cosmos) not enough to be a sustaining cause? Must there be anything beyond the "state of affairs" itself for everything else to exist?

Maybe I'm being naive about something in my argument, or maybe no one is getting my point, but I didn't get any solid objection to my point from the OP or you for that matter. What you did earlier amounted to "Yeah, I don't know man, but there's this specific theist philosopher/theologian who elegantly argues something relevant here, and I don't know if I understand it correctly, but it seems compelling". That's basically the response I got from you.

Edit to add: I'm not convinced that the principle of limitation must unconditionally hold. Please convince me otherwise.